Quartet Out - Live at the Meat House

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I don't think I've been as enthusiastic about something new (for me) in a long time. This CD is the real deal. It goes back and forth between Ornette-like heads and blues-based melodies, with some fabulous soloing sandwiched in between. And the lineup is beautiful - 2 tenor players, bass and drums. Simple. And wonderful. I've not heard stuff this together in a long time, and I'd even complained that the world of New Jazz wasn't as interesting as before.

7 tracks taken at whirlwind pace, but with so much meat in the playing that when you get this - Reynolds, Olewnick, Zamora, Kargatis, Peterson, Bluenoter - all the rest of you really need to go to musicaconcarne@yahoo.com and get your CD today. I will guarantee that you will not be disappointed...you will not go away hungry, and there's something here for everybody, even a vocal track!

Great, Great CD.

PS - for those of you who don't know, or don't remember, one of the 2 tenor players on the CD is Mr. Jim Sangrey, one of our erudite JC colleagues...that's his e-mail address up above.

[bluenoter]

Dennis, thanks for thinking of me and for including me in such illustrious company. I can't get the CD today, but I'll put it high on my list.

[Reid]

Dennis,

I'm curious to know if you really liked it because the playing was really fantastic or if there was something new and fresh (or both). If it's the latter I'm interested in hearing what you thought was new or fresh about it. Thanks.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

I really like the CD, but it also is very moving, and it appeals on different levels. First of all, the playing is superlative, and it is a live recording...which means the playing is not sent through an overdub "filter", but is genuine, at-the-moment exciting, and the audience backs me up. Frequently, live recordings lose the visual "theatrics", the cinematic aspect of being there, but this music, this recording makes you feel the movements of the players, and you almost feel like you're there.

New? Well, let's say that it was recorded in March of 2002, so from what you've defined as new in your posts, yes, it is "contemporary"...within the past 10 years. Plus, the recording was released just within the past few weeks, so in that aspect as well it is new. They take sounds and feeling from the past 30 years or so...some go back even to the 1920's!...and use it as their vocabulary, in a very new way. It was recorded new at the time that it was recorded improvised (meaning from the original Latin "never seen before" im pro viso).

One interesting detail: Even though there are 2 tenors, one of the men sounds like an alto player, with that type of higher pitched fluidity. The other tenor sounds lower and more blues-based, with more deliberate phrasing and a different emotional "field".

I'm tellin' ya...you owe it to yourself to research it. But it's gonna take a bit of work to e-mail Mr. Sangrey and get the payment to him and get it in the mail! I hope you all can do that.

[Jim Sangrey]

WHOA! I get caught up in plumbing problems and several other personal crises for a week and look what I miss!

First of all - than you, Dennis, for you kind words and enthusiasm. You know I appreciate it.

Now, as for the whole "is it new?" business, here's an honest answer – Yes. And, No.

Please understand that this is a question that I've asked myself (of others and of myself) many, MANY times over the years, and frankly, it's a matter that no longer concerns me as a listener at all, and only concerns me as a musician to the extent that I want to continue growing and developing and not turn into Lester Young's dreaded "repeater pencil".

The questions for me now are, "Is it real?", "Is it inspired", and most importantly, "Is it ALIVE?" That last one is the crux of the matter, I believe, because when you get right down to it, there ain't nothin' REALLY new, not in terms of "meaning" anyway. Sure, the language evolves and changes over the years, but the stories stay the same. Only the names change.

It's normal, natural, desirable even, to have a thirst for new inspirations, musical and otherwise, but I think that as one gains experience that one begins to see underlying similarities that put the whole question of "newness" in perspective. If something is in fact evolutionary, does it not then follow that it carries a least a vestigial connection to the past, and therefore is disqualified from being TRULY "new"? Similarly, if something shows up that has no discernable relationship whatsoever to anything that has come before, what meaning does it have in the context of our lives other than something that we know absolutely nothing about? Is total unfamiliarity grounds for automatic adoration? A slippery slope, that one seems to me.

If the question is "Does Quartet Out play music that practices wholesale regurgitation of other peoples' vocabularies and expressions?", then the answer is a fairly simple "no". On the other hand, if the question is, "Does Quartet Out play music that has absolutely no connection, not even remotely, to anything that I've ever heard before in this or any other life I may or may not have led?", the answer is an EXTREMELY simple "no".

But, simple answers are all too often the result of simple questions, and those are some pretty simple questions. Not that they're not worth asking, because these days, you get a lot of this "either/or" mentality that demands either absolute fidelity to the past or an absolute rejection of it, and that's all I'll say here because it's the subject of my liner notes to WELCOME TO THE PARTY, and I'm a shameless ho when it gets like that....

If anybody can bring themselves to ask the question, "Does a group that is in touch with today and the past, their own personalities and their greater place in the overall human resonance, but is not infatuated with any one at the expense of the others; and that strives to really, truly be as honest in the face of history AND as 'in the moment' as their synapses will allow at any given moment and/or bar sound like something I might enjoy checking out?" in a positive manner, then let's talk. If you can't, well, hey, that's cool. Different strokes, everybody's gotta be somewhere, and all that. I've been liberated from the tyranny of the new as well as the tyranny of the old, but I realize that that's an entirely personal matter that's strictly between me and my monkey. I COULD lie my ass off and pitch all kinds of hype, but it ain't worth it. I'm a shameless ho SOME of the time, but I got my limits, ok? Quartet Out is who and what they are. We didn't get there all at once, and we'll not destroy it all at once either just to sell some sides. We’re NOT “NEW! NEW! NEW!”, but we don’t REALLY sound like anybody else either, not in any but the most superficial way (consider that a DIRECT challenge to the lazy-listening, historically naive, musically illiterate cliché-mongers of the world, please!). You’ll hear echoes of the past (ancient and recent), but not quotes. Respect, not necrophilia. Now, that’s in no way a guarantee that you’ll like us – you may not! One guarantee though - unless it's just a phase we're going through as a band, we'll not turn into a repeater pencil.

It's in the bylaws, signed in blood.

[relyles]

I have this disc also. When Jim Sangrey mailed it to me, he also asked me to let him now how it hit me. Jim I apologize for not answering your question sooner. RIGHT IN THE CHEST! This is a very powerful performance with very passionate playing by all. Dennis, thanks for reminding me that I need to give this one another spin and that I need to listen to the first Quartet Out disc, which is still in my unheard music pile.

[Reid]

Thanks for the responses, Dennis and Jim. It's clear you think the playing is really fantastic on this, and that's definitely something that attracts me.

Jim said,

"If something is in fact evolutionary, does it not then follow that it carries a least a vestigial connection to the past, and therefore is disqualified from being TRULY 'new'?"

No, not at all. At least not to me. Honestly, I can't think of anything that is totally cut-off from the past. The musicians that I have really gotten excited about recently--Merzbow, Knead (Keiji Haino and The Ruins)--they're not cut off from the past. I definitely see them as an outgrowth of what came before them. But I also feel like what they've done is significantly different from what the music that came before them.

What constitutes a significant difference, imo, often involves a new type of vocabularly, or sound. The changes are pervasive in the music; you can hear it in the melody, rhythm, and harmony. If you think of any major development in jazz, that's where you hear the difference. The significant differences of be-bop could be heard in the rhythm, melody and harmony. In addition, sometimes the role of the instruments are modified as well.

I don't know if this really matters, but I just wanted to clarify my position, namely, I'm not wanting to hear something that is totally cut off from the past.